Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Psystar Will Countersue Apple

Posted by kdawson on from the take-that dept.

An anonymous reader sends us to CNet for news that Apple clone maker Pystar plans to countersue Apple. We discussed Apple's suit last month. "Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar... will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is 'an anticompetitive restraint of trade,' according to [an] attorney... Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages."

9 of 1,084 comments (clear)

  1. I've always wondered... by JWman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If Apple would ever come to be regarded as evil as Microsoft is. I personally believe that Apple's business practices would make them far worse than MS if they had 90% of the market instead of 7%.

    They are able to survive because they are filling a niche market, leading me to believe that they will not be a serious competitor to MS anytime soon.

    In the meantime I await the continual improvement of linux to cause a critical mass of marketshare so that vendors will finally start giving it proper support....

  2. Raminfications by sincewhen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This would have interesting ramifications if the countersuit was to succeed, and Apple forced to change the licencing restriction so that anyone could legally run OSX on non-Apple hardware.

    I don't belive it would be in Apple's corporate culture to embrace such a change and push OSX as an alternative to Windows - they are making too much money doing what they currently do.
    So I assume that means they would try to tie the OS to their hardware with code. Which may be enough to preserve the current situation - while it wouldn't stop hackers, it would discourage the vast majority of people.

    --
    -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  3. Who's Paying the Legal Bill at Psystar? by mpapet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These events alone will generate $1MM+ (million??) in legal bills. We all know Apple won't stop until psystar is closed and will use it as an example to every american with a similar idea. You know, heads on a stick at the city gates and all that.

    So, where's psystar's money coming from?

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  4. If Apple wins... by QZTR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will it be because they're right, or becuse they're rich?

    --
    To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
  5. Re:In a word... by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OS X is subsidized by hardware sales. The last time they sold an OS that wasn't subsized by hardware sales, it was OpenStep, and it sold for ~$800. ~$1600 if you wanted the development version.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Anticompetitive practice != Monopoly by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think the argument is that Apple is a monopoly, but rather that they're engaging in anticompetitive behavior - tying the purchase of one product (the OS) to another (the computer).

    I don't see how Apple could ever be compelled to provide support on any hardware it doesn't deem acceptable. If they were to lose, maybe the outcome will be that if you sell an OS, you don't have the right to restrict its use to particular hardware.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  7. Re:Those who forget history by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That was before they were really running on commodity hardware. When an Mac was a physically different piece of hardware from an abstract perspective (different processor, running a different instruction set) they could more easily make the case, since they've flipped to the 86 platform, I don't think their case will be as strong.

    --
    (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
  8. Re:In a word... by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple is making it impossible for anyone else to sell a computer that is compatible with OS X. The Microsoft anti-trust rulings these days all seem to stem from interoperability. There are existing rulings that suggest if you refuse to play well with others, you can be found guilty of antitrust violations.

    Heck, if Microsoft is going to be found guilty by bundling Media Player with Windows, I think Apple does far worse things when it comes to bundling, such as forcing me to purchase Apple hardware to run Apple software.

    That is what this new counter-suit will be about. Based on previous Microsoft rulings, I think Psystar has an argument. What may kill their case is the psuedo-legality of their current business practices. Will a court give Psystar a fair shake if they pre-judge them to be criminals trying to illegally profit off someone else's product?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  9. Re:In a word... by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And apple brought suit immediately after the Blizzard/Glider decision